Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    26 Sep '10 23:07 / 1 edit
    http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/3505/26/

    Excerpt:

    Take this no-name pastor from an obscure church who was threatening to burn the Koran. He didn’t burn any buildings or women and children. He didn’t even burn a book. He hadn’t actually laid a finger on a Koran, and yet the mere suggestion that he might do so prompted the President of the United States to denounce him, and the Secretary of State, and the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, various G7 leaders, and golly, even Angelina Jolie. President Obama has never said a word about honor killings of Muslim women. Secretary Clinton has never said a word about female genital mutilation. General Petraeus has never said a word about the rampant buggery of pre-pubescent boys by Pushtun men in Kandahar. But let an obscure man in Florida so much as raise the possibility that he might disrespect a book – an inanimate object – and the most powerful figures in the western world feel they have to weigh in.

    Aside from all that, this obscure church’s website has been shut down, its insurance policy has been canceled, its mortgage has been called in by its bankers. Why? As Diana West wrote, why was it necessary or even seemly to make this pastor a non-person? Another one of Obama's famous "teaching moments"? In this case teaching us that Islamic law now applies to all? Only a couple of weeks ago, the President, at his most condescendingly ineffectual, presumed to lecture his moronic subjects about the First Amendment rights of Imam Rauf. Where's the condescending lecture on Pastor Jones' First Amendment rights?

    When someone destroys a bible, US government officials don’t line up to attack him. President Obama bowed lower than a fawning maitre d’ before the King of Saudi Arabia, a man whose regime destroys bibles as a matter of state policy, and a man whose depraved religious police forces schoolgirls fleeing from a burning building back into the flames to die because they’d committed the sin of trying to escape without wearing their head scarves. If you show a representation of Mohammed, European commissioners and foreign ministers line up to denounce you. If you show a representation of Jesus Christ immersed in your own urine, you get a government grant for producing a widely admired work of art. Likewise, if you write a play about Jesus having gay sex with Judas Iscariot.


    Forget the identity of the author; I understand that some will play shoot the messenger here. And, FWIW, this guy does overdo it on the rhetoric a bit.

    But, does he have a point?

    Or, it is true that anti-Islamic demonstrations receive harsher treatment than anti-Christian ones, but is that double standard justified based on political expediency or some similar reason?

    Or does he simply not have a legitimate point?
  2. 26 Sep '10 23:26
    He's right. But that's just the way it is, so short of a revolution what are you going to do about it?
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Sep '10 23:30
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/3505/26/

    Excerpt:

    [quote]Take this no-name pastor from an obscure church who was threatening to burn the Koran. He didn’t burn any buildings or women and children. He didn’t even burn a book. He hadn’t actually laid a finger on a Koran, and yet the mere suggestion that he might do so prompted the President of the Un ...[text shortened]... itical expediency or some similar reason?

    Or does he simply not have a legitimate point?
    Why would anyone be critical of a man courageous enough to have endured Canada's human rights Hell?
  4. 26 Sep '10 23:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/3505/26/

    Excerpt:

    [quote]Take this no-name pastor from an obscure church who was threatening to burn the Koran. He didn’t burn any buildings or women and children. He didn’t even burn a book. He hadn’t actually laid a finger on a Koran, and yet the mere suggestion that he might do so prompted the President of the Un itical expediency or some similar reason?

    Or does he simply not have a legitimate point?
    Its a campaign of appeasement to help calm down all the insane radical Muslims that are hell bent on destroying the West. If you don't believe me, as NASA. Unfortunately one cannot reason with the unreasonable.
  5. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    26 Sep '10 23:43
    This guy's an American. Those other crimes you describe did not take place in The USA.
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    26 Sep '10 23:50
    Originally posted by Eladar
    He's right. But that's just the way it is, so short of a revolution what are you going to do about it?
    Nothing. This is an academic debate only.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Sep '10 23:55
    Originally posted by sh76
    Nothing. This is an academic debate only.
    Yes, it's quite an "academic" piece.

    I thought we went all over the Florida pastor incident and the reaction of the Obama administration and the generals who have to conduct a war in a conservative Muslim country. What exactly does dredging up the Whodey-like ravings of a far right nutter add to that discussion?
  8. 27 Sep '10 00:34
    Originally posted by sh76
    Nothing. This is an academic debate only.
    How do you debate facts?
  9. 27 Sep '10 09:19
    Did anyone in the US threaten to burn bibles or torahs?
  10. 27 Sep '10 09:21
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Did anyone in the US threaten to burn bibles or torahs?
    Lets do a little exercise. Why did the person in question threaten to burn the koran?
  11. 27 Sep '10 09:24
    Originally posted by whodey
    Lets do a little exercise. Why did the person in question threaten to burn the koran?
    I don't know, I guess he wanted some attention and succeeded.
  12. 27 Sep '10 09:33
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I don't know, I guess he wanted some attention and succeeded.
    Wrong. It was in protest of the mosqe going up at ground zero. Why was he protesting that event?
  13. 27 Sep '10 09:34
    Originally posted by whodey
    Wrong. It was in protest of the mosqe going up at ground zero. Why was he protesting that event?
    Because he is a bigot, I suppose. Why else would one object to such fundamental American values as religious freedom?
  14. 27 Sep '10 09:45 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Because he is a bigot, I suppose. Why else would one object to such fundamental American values as religious freedom?
    He may be a bigot, but that is not the issue here. The issue is to UNDERSTAND why people do what they do. The issue is that 9/11 was carried out by Muslims who had declared a jihad on America. Then other Muslims came along and wanted to build their religious shrine at the site. Many are angered by this act even though they may not be bigots. In fact, I have heard other Muslims say it is not a very respectful thing to do.

    The bottom line is that the pastor was protesting the violent fringe in Islam. So he threatens to burn a Koran and then more threats of violence insue.

    Conversely, if you threatened to burn the Torah or a Bible nothing would be done. In fact, I don't know of any radical fringe within either religion powerful enough to carry out a world wide campaign of terror.

    Of course if there were radical terrorist groups in both religions, perhaps Obama could placate them as well in various ways. For example, perhaps he could devote the department of Agriculture to reach out to the violent fringe in Judism just like he is using NASA to reach out to the Muslim world.
  15. 27 Sep '10 09:50 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    He may be a bigot, but that is not the issue here. The issue is to UNDERSTAND why people do what they do. The issue is that 9/11 was carried out by Muslims who had declared a jihad on America. Then other Muslims came along and wanted to build their religious shrine at the site. Many are angered by this act even though they may not be bigots. In fact, I h cal fringe within either religion powerful enough to carry out a world wide campaign of terror.
    It is bigotry at play here, though. For example, no one blames me for other crimes people with brown eyes, an education in physics or blue sweaters have committed. In fact most people would think this is rather absurd, although they may not realize it's equally absurd to blame muslims for things other muslims did. So it's quite easy to UNDERSTAND - it's simple bigotry, and bigotry can be explained through evolutionary psychology.